... And that's another double standard, I see: Islam is to be judged not by what Muslims believe but by what you think its scriptures say, but everything bad that Christian scriptures say can be handwaved away because Christians don't believe that these days.
Actually, the hand-waving - for years now - has been yours about the nature of absolutism vis-a-vis dogma, and Islam in particular. The other faiths you mention now have established means for contrasting opinions with non-believers without violence. Islam, institutionally, does not, and in fact is insisting on and doubling-down on its supremacy. The violence, and vocal support for it, is a direct result of this absolute truth claim and the place it takes in the mind. Islam is, today, now, in the 21st century, unreformed ancient tribalism, i.e., it is a narrow tribal myth to which all must bow on pain of war and death. Islam, to be peaceful and compatible, has to drop this claim, and
prohibit the line quoted recently in the thread about killing for the faith. I realize that's hard. But the reason it is hard is because the very rationale Mohamed gave for his ministry was that of being
final, absolute authority and fully entitled enforcer of that authority for all time, abrogating all that went before and would follow. Whoa, horsey! Islam must own that, and own up to the evils done in the name of such extremism. Islam is extremist by its very canon and the life examples believers are given to follow (hadith).
You have asked somewhere in the thread recently what someone would say is a fair summary of the beliefs of Islam's followers, and not just using scriptural references. After all, as the argument goes, we can find examples of the advocacy of evil/unlawful behavior in all religious texts. The answer to that is, first, once again, the absolutist - and therefore unacceptable - position of Islam is unchanged, Sunni or Shia (vast bulk of Islam). Both sects consider Mohamed the final and definitive prophet (no new learning possible! no free speech or of religion!), both include of course all of the political aspects of Islamic teaching (no democracy!), and consider Islam the sole authority in all matters (no democracy!), and that Islam is to be spread, by any and all means necessary, to the entire globe (not peaceful!). I challenge you to provide me an example of someone being able to consistently deny - without fear of severe punishment or death - any of the last sentence publicly in Iran or Saudi Arabia, each the HQ for a major branch of the faith. Can't; those are the basics,
and the basics are bad.
But you asked for something concrete. So here are two: the Cairo Declaration, representing the "best" of the beliefs that the bulk of Islamic nation-states and so institutional Islam subscribe to (oops!, completely incompatible with democracy; so there you are), and the recurring attempts
now, in the 21st century, to pass what is a thinly disguised blasphemy law as a binding UN treaty. Oops, yet again, for the umpteenth time in history.
That last is an attempt by Islam to silence me, personally, along with everyone else. This
global gag measure would reduce the freedom of speech and in the most dangerous way, by sanctifying mythical dogma;
it is an intolerable direct attack. This means the Borg have now engaged
all of humanity, and we are all consequently free to counter. Bias is now improper as an accusation against critics of Islam, and in fact would constitute instead slander meant to further that same end of censorship. Perhaps it would have been best not attempt such a blatant move, as institutional Islam has just performed what constitutes a very public, definitive, unmistakable intellectual and moral trouser drop for anyone who cares to observe. No honor, so no respect.
